[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9621-9630]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           ELECTION SUPPORT CONSOLIDATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT

  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 672) to terminate the Election Assistance Commission, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 672

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Election Support 
     Consolidation and Efficiency Act''.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.

       (a) Termination.--The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 15301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:

                  ``TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION

                       ``Subtitle A--Termination

     ``SEC. 1001. TERMINATION.

       ``Effective on the Commission termination date, the 
     Commission (including the Election Assistance Commission 
     Standards Board and the Election Assistance Commission Board 
     of Advisors under part 2 of subtitle A of title II) is 
     terminated and may not carry out any programs or activities.

     ``SEC. 1002. TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS TO OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT 
                   AND BUDGET DURING TRANSITION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall, effective upon the Commission termination 
     date--
       ``(1) perform the functions of the Commission with respect 
     to contracts and agreements described in subsection 1003(a) 
     until the expiration of such contracts and agreements, but 
     shall not renew any such contract or agreement; and
       ``(2) shall take the necessary steps to wind up the affairs 
     of the Commission.
       ``(b) Exception for Functions Transferred to Other 
     Agencies.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to any 
     functions of the Commission that are transferred under 
     subtitle B.

     ``SEC. 1003. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Prior Contracts.--The termination of the Commission 
     under this subtitle shall not affect any contract that has 
     been entered into by the Commission before the Commission 
     termination date. All such contracts shall continue in effect 
     until modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked 
     in accordance with law by an authorized Federal official, a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of law.
       ``(b) Obligations of Recipients of Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The termination of the Commission under 
     this subtitle shall not affect the authority of any recipient 
     of a payment made by the Commission under this Act prior to 
     the Commission termination date to use any portion of the 
     payment that remains unobligated as of the Commission 
     termination date, and the terms and conditions that applied 
     to the use of the payment at the time the payment was made 
     shall continue to apply.
       ``(2) Special rule for states receiving requirements 
     payments.--In the case of a requirements payment made to a 
     State under part 1 of subtitle D of title II, the terms and 
     conditions applicable to the use of the payment for purposes 
     of the State's obligations under this subsection (as well as 
     any obligations in effect prior to the termination of the 
     Commission under this subtitle), and for purposes of any 
     applicable requirements imposed by regulations promulgated by 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall be 
     the general terms and conditions applicable under Federal 
     law, rules, and regulations to payments made by the Federal 
     government to a State, except that to the extent that such 
     general terms and conditions are inconsistent with the terms 
     and conditions that are specified under part 1 of subtitle D 
     of title II or section 902, the terms and conditions 
     specified under such part and such section shall apply.
       ``(c) Pending Proceedings.--
       ``(1) No effect on pending proceedings.--The termination of 
     the Commission under this subtitle shall not affect any 
     proceeding to which the Commission is a party that is pending 
     on such date, including any suit to which the Commission is a 
     party that is commenced prior to such date, and the 
     applicable official shall be substituted or added as a party 
     to the proceeding.
       ``(2) Treatment of orders.--In the case of a proceeding 
     described in paragraph (1), an order may be issued, an appeal 
     may be taken, judgments may be rendered, and payments may be 
     made as if the Commission had not been terminated. Any such 
     order shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, 
     superseded, or revoked by an authorized Federal official, a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of law.
       ``(3) Construction relating to discontinuance or 
     modification.--Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to 
     prohibit the discontinuance or modification of any proceeding 
     described in paragraph (1) under the same terms and 
     conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could 
     have been discontinued or modified if the Commission had not 
     been terminated.
       ``(4) Regulations for transfer of proceedings.--The 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget may issue 
     regulations providing for the orderly transfer of proceedings 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Judicial Review.--Orders and actions of the 
     applicable official in the exercise of functions of the 
     Commission shall be subject to judicial review to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as if such orders and actions 
     had been issued or taken by the Commission. Any requirements 
     relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or 
     administrative review that apply to any function of the 
     Commission shall apply to the exercise of such function by 
     the applicable official.
       ``(e) Applicable Official Defined.--In this section, the 
     `applicable official' means, with respect to any proceeding, 
     order, or action--
       ``(1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
     to the extent that the proceeding, order, or action relates 
     to functions performed by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget under section 1002; or
       ``(2) the Federal Election Commission, to the extent that 
     the proceeding, order, or action relates to a function 
     transferred under subtitle B.

     ``SEC. 1004. COMMISSION TERMINATION DATE.

       ``The `Commission termination date' is the first date 
     following the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on 
     the date of the enactment of this subtitle.

             ``Subtitle B--Transfer of Certain Authorities

     ``SEC. 1011. TRANSFER OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIONS TO 
                   FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

       ``There are transferred to the Federal Election Commission 
     (hereafter in this section referred to as the `FEC') the 
     following functions of the Commission:
       ``(1) The adoption of voluntary voting system guidelines, 
     in accordance with part 3 of subtitle A of title II.
       ``(2) The testing, certification, decertification, and 
     recertification of voting system hardware and software by 
     accredited laboratories, in accordance with subtitle B of 
     title II.
       ``(3) The maintenance of a clearinghouse of information on 
     the experiences of State and local governments in 
     implementing voluntary voting system guidelines and in 
     operating voting systems in general.
       ``(4) The development of a standardized format for reports 
     submitted by States under section 102(c) of the Uniformed and 
     Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the making of such 
     format available to States and units of local government 
     submitting such reports, in accordance with section 703(b).
       ``(5) Any functions transferred to the Commission under 
     section 801 (relating to functions of

[[Page 9622]]

     the former Office of Election Administration of the FEC).
       ``(6) Any functions transferred to the Commission under 
     section 802 (relating to functions described in section 9(a) 
     of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993).
       ``(7) Any functions of the Commission under section 1604(a) 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff 
     note) (relating to establishing guidelines and providing 
     technical assistance with respect to electronic voting 
     demonstration projects of the Secretary of Defense).
       ``(8) Any functions of the Commission under section 
     589(e)(1) of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-7(e)(1)) (relating to providing technical 
     assistance with respect to technology pilot programs for the 
     benefit of absent uniformed services voters and overseas 
     voters).

     ``SEC. 1012. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       ``The transfers under this subtitle shall take effect on 
     the Commission termination date described in section 1004.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

                  ``TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION

                       ``Subtitle A--Termination

``Sec. 1001. Termination.
``Sec. 1002. Transfer of operations to Office of Management and Budget 
              during transition.
``Sec. 1003. Savings provisions.
``Sec. 1004. Commission termination date.

             ``Subtitle B--Transfer of Certain Authorities

``Sec. 1011. Transfer of election administration functions to Federal 
              Election Commission.
``Sec. 1012. Effective date.''.

     SEC. 3. REPLACEMENT OF STANDARDS BOARD AND BOARD OF ADVISORS 
                   WITH GUIDELINES REVIEW BOARD.

       (a) Replacement.--Part 2 of subtitle A of title II of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15341 et seq.) is 
     amended to read as follows:

                   ``PART 2--GUIDELINES REVIEW BOARD

     ``SEC. 211. ESTABLISHMENT.

       ``There is established the Guidelines Review Board 
     (hereafter in this part referred to as the `Board').

     ``SEC. 212. DUTIES.

       ``The Board shall, in accordance with the procedures 
     described in part 3, review the voluntary voting system 
     guidelines under such part.

     ``SEC. 213. MEMBERSHIP.

       ``(a) In General.--The Board shall be composed of 82 
     members appointed as follows:
       ``(1) One State or local election official from each State, 
     to be selected by the chief State election official of the 
     State, who shall take into account the needs of both State 
     and local election officials in making the selection.
       ``(2) 2 members appointed by the National Conference of 
     State Legislatures.
       ``(3) 2 members appointed by the National Association of 
     Secretaries of State.
       ``(4) 2 members appointed by the National Association of 
     State Election Directors.
       ``(5) 2 members appointed by the National Association of 
     County Recorders, Election Administrators, and Clerks.
       ``(6) 2 members appointed by the Election Center.
       ``(7) 2 members appointed by the International Association 
     of County Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers.
       ``(8) 2 members appointed by the United States Commission 
     on Civil Rights.
       ``(9) 2 members appointed by the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barrier Compliance Board under section 502 of 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792).
       ``(10) The chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights 
     Division of the Department of Justice or the chief's 
     designee.
       ``(11) The director of the Federal Voting Assistance 
     Program of the Department of Defense.
       ``(12) The Director of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology or the Director's designee.
       ``(13) 4 members representing professionals in the field of 
     science and technology, of whom--
       ``(A) one each shall be appointed by the Speaker and the 
     Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) one each shall be appointed by the Majority Leader 
     and the Minority Leader of the Senate.
       ``(14) 4 members representing voter interests, of whom--
       ``(A) one each shall be appointed by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on House Administration of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) one each shall be appointed by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate.
       ``(b) Manner of Appointments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Appointments shall be made to the Board 
     under subsection (a) in a manner which ensures that the Board 
     will be bipartisan in nature and will reflect the various 
     geographic regions of the United States.
       ``(2) Special rule for certain appointments.--The 2 
     individuals who are appointed as members of the Board under 
     each of the paragraphs (2) through (9) of subsection (a) may 
     not be members of the same political party.
       ``(c) Term of Service; Vacancy.--Members of the Board shall 
     serve for a term of 2 years, and may be reappointed. Any 
     vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the manner in which 
     the original appointment was made.
       ``(d) Executive Board.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the day on 
     which the appointment of its members is completed, the Board 
     shall select 9 of its members to serve as the Executive Board 
     of the Guidelines Review Board, of whom--
       ``(A) not more than 5 may be State election officials;
       ``(B) not more than 5 may be local election officials; and
       ``(C) not more than 5 may be members of the same political 
     party.
       ``(2) Terms.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), members 
     of the Executive Board of the Board shall serve for a term of 
     2 years and may not serve for more than 3 consecutive terms.
       ``(3) Staggering of initial terms.--Of the members first 
     selected to serve on the Executive Board of the Board--
       ``(A) 3 shall serve for 1 term;
       ``(B) 3 shall serve for 2 consecutive terms; and
       ``(C) 3 shall serve for 3 consecutive terms,
     as determined by lot at the time the members are first 
     appointed.
       ``(4) Duties.--The Executive Board of the Board shall carry 
     out such duties of the Board as the Board may delegate.
       ``(e) Bylaws; Delegation of Authority.--The Board may 
     promulgate such bylaws as it considers appropriate to provide 
     for the operation of the Board, including bylaws that permit 
     the Executive Board to grant to any of its members the 
     authority to act on behalf of the Executive Board.

     ``SEC. 214. POWERS; NO COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE.

       ``(a) Hearings and Sessions.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent that funds are made 
     available by the Federal Election Commission, the Board may 
     hold such hearings for the purpose of carrying out this Act, 
     sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, 
     and receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to 
     carry out this title, except that the Board may not issue 
     subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses 
     or the production of any evidence.
       ``(2) Meetings.--The Board shall hold a meeting of its 
     members--
       ``(A) not less frequently than once every 2 years for 
     purposes selecting the Executive Board and voting on the 
     voluntary voting system guidelines referred to it under 
     section 222; and
       ``(B) at such other times as it considers appropriate for 
     purposes of conducting such other business as it considers 
     appropriate consistent with this title.
       ``(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Board may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Board considers necessary to carry out 
     this Act. Upon request of the Executive Board, the head of 
     such department or agency shall furnish such information to 
     the Board.
       ``(c) Postal Services.--The Board may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as a 
     department or agency of the Federal Government.
       ``(d) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Executive Board, the Administrator of the General 
     Services Administration shall provide to the Board, on a 
     reimbursable basis, the administrative support services that 
     are necessary to enable the Board to carry out its duties 
     under this title.
       ``(e) No Compensation for Service.--Members of the Board 
     shall not receive any compensation for their service, but 
     shall be paid travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Board.

     ``SEC. 215. STATUS OF BOARD AND MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   CLAIMS AGAINST BOARD.

       ``(a) In General.--The provisions of chapters 161 and 171 
     of title 28, United States Code, shall apply with respect to 
     the liability of the Board and its members for acts or 
     omissions performed pursuant to and in the course of the 
     duties and responsibilities of the Board.
       ``(b) Exception for Criminal Acts and Other Willful 
     Conduct.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to limit 
     personal liability for criminal acts or omissions, willful or 
     malicious misconduct, acts or omissions for private gain, or 
     any other act or omission outside the scope of the service of 
     a member of the Board.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Membership on technical guidelines development 
     committee.--Section 221(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     15361(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking clauses (i) and (ii) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Members of the Guidelines Review Board.'';
       (B) by redesignating clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) as 
     clause (ii); and
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``Standards Board or 
     Board of Advisors'' and inserting ``Guidelines Review 
     Board''.
       (2) Consideration of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(b) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(b)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Board of Advisors and 
     Standards Board'' and inserting ``Guidelines Review Board''; 
     and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Guidelines review board.--The Executive Director of 
     the Commission shall submit the

[[Page 9623]]

     guidelines proposed to be adopted under this part (or any 
     modifications to such guidelines) to the Guidelines Review 
     Board.''.
       (3) Review of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(c) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(c)) is amended by striking ``the Board 
     of Advisors and the Standards Board shall each review'' and 
     inserting ``the Guidelines Review Board shall review''.
       (4) Final adoption of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(d) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(d)) is amended by striking ``the 
     Board of Advisors and the Standards Board'' each place it 
     appears in paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``the 
     Guidelines Review Board''.
       (5) Assistance with nist review of testing laboratories.--
     Section 231(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15371(c)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``the Standards Board and the Board of 
     Advisors'' and inserting ``the Guidelines Review Board''.
       (6) Assisting fec with development of standardized format 
     for reports on absentee ballots of absent uniformed services 
     and overseas voters.--Section 703(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1973ff-1 note) is amended by striking ``the Election 
     Assistance Commission Board of Advisors and the Election 
     Assistance Commission Standards Board'' and inserting ``the 
     Guidelines Review Board''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by amending the item relating to part 2 of 
     subtitle A of title II to read as follows:

                   ``Part 2--Guidelines Review Board

``Sec. 211. Establishment.
``Sec. 212. Duties.
``Sec. 213. Membership.
``Sec. 214. Powers; no compensation for service.
``Sec. 215. Status of Board and members for purposes of claims against 
              Board.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the Commission termination date 
     described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (as added by section 1(a)).

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSFER OF CERTAIN 
                   AUTHORITIES TO FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

       (a) Development and Adoption of Voluntary Voting System 
     Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Part 3 of subtitle A of title II of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15361 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 223. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY TO FEDERAL ELECTION 
                   COMMISSION.

       ``(a) Transfer.--Effective on the Commission termination 
     date described in section 1004, the Federal Election 
     Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `FEC') shall be responsible for carrying out the duties and 
     functions of the Commission under this part.
       ``(b) Role of Executive Director.--The FEC shall carry out 
     the operation and management of its duties and functions 
     under this part through the Office of the Executive Director 
     of the FEC.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by adding at the end of the item relating to part 
     3 of subtitle A of title II the following:

``Sec. 223. Transfer of authority to Federal Election Commission.''.

       (b) Testing, Certification, Decertification, and 
     Recertification of Voting System Hardware and Software.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle B of title II of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 15371 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 232. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY TO FEDERAL ELECTION 
                   COMMISSION.

       ``(a) Transfer.--
       ``(1) In general.--Effective on the Commission termination 
     date described in section 1004, the Federal Election 
     Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `FEC') shall be responsible for carrying out the duties and 
     functions of the Commission under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Role of executive director.--The FEC shall carry out 
     the operation and management of its duties and functions 
     under this subtitle through the Office of the Executive 
     Director of the FEC.
       ``(b) Transfer of Office of Voting System Testing and 
     Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are transferred to the FEC all 
     functions that the Office of Voting System Testing and 
     Certification of the Commission (hereafter in this section 
     referred to as the `Office') exercised under this subtitle 
     before the Commission termination date.
       ``(2) Transfer of property, records, and personnel.--
       ``(A) Property and records.--The contracts, liabilities, 
     records, property, appropriations, and other assets and 
     interests of the Office, together with the unexpended 
     balances of any appropriations or other funds available to 
     the Office, are transferred and made available to the FEC.
       ``(B) Personnel.--
       ``(i) In general.--The personnel of the Office are 
     transferred to the FEC, except that the number of full-time 
     equivalent personnel so transferred may not exceed the number 
     of full-time equivalent personnel of the Office as of January 
     1, 2011.
       ``(ii) Treatment of employees at time of transfer.--An 
     individual who is an employee of the Office who is 
     transferred under this section shall not be separated or 
     reduced in grade or compensation because of the transfer 
     during the 1-year period that begins on the date of the 
     transfer.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to 
     subtitle B of title II the following:

``Sec. 232. Transfer of authority to Federal Election Commission.''.

       (c) Development of Standardized Format for Reports on 
     Absentee Balloting by Absent Uniformed Services Voters and 
     Overseas Voters.--Section 703(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1973ff-1 note) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Effective on the Commission termination date described in 
     section 1004, the Federal Election Commission shall be 
     responsible for carrying out the duties and functions of the 
     Commission under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.--
       (1) Duties of fec.--Section 311(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(10) provide for the adoption of voluntary voting system 
     guidelines, in accordance with part 3 of subtitle A of title 
     II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15361 et 
     seq.);
       ``(11) provide for the testing, certification, 
     decertification, and recertification of voting system 
     hardware and software by accredited laboratories, in 
     accordance with subtitle B of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15371 et seq.);
       ``(12) maintain a clearinghouse of information on the 
     experiences of State and local governments in implementing 
     voluntary voting system guidelines and in operating voting 
     systems in general;
       ``(13) carry out the duties described in section 9(a) of 
     the National Voter Registration Act of 1993;
       ``(14) develop a standardized format for reports submitted 
     by States under section 102(c) of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act, make such format available to 
     States and units of local government submitting such reports, 
     and receive such reports in accordance with section 102(c) of 
     such Act, in accordance with section 703(b) of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002;
       ``(15) carry out the duties described in section 1604(a)(2) 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff 
     note); and
       ``(16) carry out the duties described in section 589(e)(1) 
     of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1973ff-7(e)(1)).''.
       (2) Authorization to enter into private contracts to carry 
     out functions.--Section 311 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 438) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Subject to applicable laws, the Commission may enter 
     into contracts with private entities to carry out any of the 
     authorities that are the responsibility of the Commission 
     under paragraphs (10) through (16) of subsection (a).''.
       (3) Limitation on authority to impose requirements on 
     states and units of local government.--Section 311 of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 438), as amended by paragraph (2), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Nothing in paragraphs (10) through (16) of subsection 
     (a) or any other provision of this Act shall be construed to 
     grant the Commission the authority to issue any rule, 
     promulgate any regulation, or take any other actions that 
     imposes any requirement on any State or unit of local 
     government, except to the extent that the Commission had such 
     authority prior to the enactment of this subsection or to the 
     extent permitted under section 9(a) of the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a)).''.
       (b) National Voter Registration Act of 1993.--Section 9(a) 
     of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 
     1973gg-7(a)) is amended by striking ``Election Assistance 
     Commission'' and inserting ``Federal Election Commission''.
       (c) Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.--
       (1) Development of standards for state reports.--Section 
     101(b)(11) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 
     Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff(b)(11)) is amended by striking 
     ``the Election Assistance Commission'' and inserting ``the 
     Federal Election Commission''.
       (2) Receipt of reports on number of absentee ballots 
     transmitted and received.--Section 102(c) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1973ff-1(c)) is amended by striking ``the Election 
     Assistance Commission (established under the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002)'' and inserting ``the Federal Election 
     Commission''.
       (d) Electronic Voting Demonstration Projects for Secretary 
     of Defense.--Section 1604(a)(2) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 
     115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff note) is amended by striking 
     ``the Election Assistance Commission'' and inserting ``the 
     Federal Election Commission''.
       (e) Technology Pilot Program for Absent Military and 
     Overseas Voters.--Section 589(e)(1) of the Military and 
     Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-7(e)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``Election Assistance Commission'' and 
     inserting ``Federal Election Commission''.

[[Page 9624]]

       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the Commission termination date 
     described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (as added by section 1(a)).

     SEC. 6. OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO TERMINATION.

       (a) Hatch Act.--Section 7323(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``or the Election 
     Assistance Commission''.
       (b) Senior Executive Service.--Section 3132(a)(1)(C) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or the 
     Election Assistance Commission''.
       (c) Inspector General Act of 1978.--Section 8G(a)(2) of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by 
     striking ``the Election Assistance Commission,''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the Commission termination date 
     described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (as added by section 1(a)).

     SEC. 7. STUDIES.

       (a) Procedures for Adoption and Modification of Voluntary 
     Voting System Guidelines.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     of the procedures used to adopt and modify the voluntary 
     voting system guidelines applicable to the administration of 
     elections for Federal office, and shall develop 
     recommendations on methods to improve such procedures, taking 
     into account the needs of persons affected by such 
     guidelines, including State and local election officials, 
     voters with disabilities, absent military and overseas 
     voters, and the manufacturers of voting systems.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the study conducted under paragraph 
     (1), and shall include in the report the recommendations 
     developed under such paragraph.
       (b) Procedures for Voting System Testing and 
     Certification.--
       (1) Study.--The Federal Election Commission shall conduct a 
     study of the procedures for the testing, certification, 
     decertification, and recertification of voting system 
     hardware and software used in elections for Federal office, 
     and shall develop a recommendation on the entity that is best 
     suited to oversee and carry out such procedures, taking into 
     consideration the needs of persons affected by such 
     procedures, including State and local election officials, 
     voters with disabilities, absent military and overseas 
     voters, and the manufacturers of voting systems.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Election Commission shall 
     submit a report to Congress on the study conducted under 
     paragraph (1), and shall include in the report the 
     recommendation developed under such paragraph.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Harper) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HARPER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we move forward on the difficult job of securing our Nation's 
financial future, the Congress will face many difficult decisions. 
Programs will have to be cut, and some even eliminated. All of those 
programs are there because someone wants them. We have to look 
carefully at each one and decide whether the benefit it creates is 
worth the cost of maintaining it.
  After more than 2 years of hearings, investigations and oversight, 
the Committee on House Administration has identified not just a program 
but a Federal agency that we cannot justify to the taxpayers. That 
agency, the Election Assistance Commission, should be eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, while the House is going to be making some very 
difficult spending decisions in the future, this is actually a clear 
and easy choice. The EAC was created in 2002 by the Help America Vote 
Act. HAVA passed the House with a large bipartisan majority. One 
hundred seventy-two Republicans voted for the bill that created the 
EAC. Its creation was a bipartisan choice, and so should be its 
termination. One of the primary reasons the EAC was created was to 
distribute money to States to update voting equipment and voter 
registration systems. The EAC has accomplished that, paying out over $3 
billion to States for those purposes. With our deep debt and deficit, 
there almost certainly will be no more money for the EAC to distribute, 
meaning that that function is complete.
  Another of the EAC's main functions, conducting research on election 
issues, is also complete. The agency has completed all of 19 planned 
election management guidelines as well as the 21 planned quick start 
guides. It has completed four of the five studies required under HAVA, 
and the fifth is tied up in an interagency controversy, making it 
unlikely that it will ever be finished.
  The EAC also maintains a clearinghouse for election officials to 
share experiences working with voting systems, and it operates a 
program to develop voluntary guidelines for voting systems, test voting 
systems against those guidelines, and certify that systems comply with 
those guidelines. Thirty-five States and territories use the Federal 
testing and certification system in some way to decide what voting 
systems their election officials can purchase and use. Unlike the 
grants and research programs that are now obsolete, the clearinghouse 
and the testing and certification programs provide continuing value for 
State and local election officials.
  Against that backdrop, we have to look at the reality of what has 
happened to the EAC. When it was created by HAVA, the EAC was a small 
agency authorized for 3 years to spend up to $10 million per year. That 
was 9 years ago. The agency is still there, and its last full-time, 
full-year appropriation was for almost $18 million. Since a staff 
ceiling was removed in 2007, the agency has doubled in size, and this 
doubling came despite the fact that many of the EAC's responsibilities 
were completed or diminished. The average salary at the EAC is over 
$100,000. It has an executive director, a chief operating officer, a 
chief financial officer, and an accounting director. In its budget 
request for 2012, the EAC proposed to spend 51.7 percent of its budget 
on management and administration costs. Mr. Speaker, that bears 
repeating. The EAC planned to spend more than half of its budget on 
overhead. An agency with that plan is an agency that should be 
eliminated.
  The need to eliminate the EAC is so great that the National 
Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan group, whose members 
have received the more than $3 billion distributed by the EAC, has 
passed two resolutions calling for Congress to dissolve the agency. In 
2005 and again in 2010, the Secretaries of State asked us to do what I 
am asking this House to support today.
  Beyond simply being an agency with an increasing size and a dwindling 
purpose, the EAC has proven time and time again that what the agency 
knows how to do best is to be reckless and irresponsible with taxpayer 
dollars. In the short time I have served on the Committee on House 
Administration, we have learned of two different cases where legal 
claims were filed against the EAC for discrimination against candidates 
for the position of general counsel. The first case involved 
discrimination based on the candidate's political affiliation. The 
second involved discrimination based on the candidate's service in the 
military. Political neutrality and assistance to military and overseas 
voters are values the EAC should promote, not undermine.

                              {time}  1920

  On top of that, these cases are expensive for the taxpayers.
  In the development of this bill, we have sought out and received a 
considerable amount of input from election officials and others, in 
hearings at the committee and other settings. That input has allowed us 
to improve this bill as we have moved forward. Perhaps most 
importantly, we added a Guidelines Review Board that gives election 
officials and others a formal seat at the table when voting system 
guidelines are developed. This board streamlines two existing boards 
into a single, smaller one but preserves the ability of States and 
local election officials to stay involved directly.
  Before I close, I would like to thank Chairman Hall from the 
Committee

[[Page 9625]]

on Science, Space, and Technology. He has worked closely with us as a 
partner in developing this bill. I appreciate his efforts to improve 
the bill and to bring it to the floor.
  This bill is a careful and thoughtful measure to close down a Federal 
agency in a responsible way. To sustain an agency that has completed 
its assigned studies, dispersed its assigned grants, and fulfilled most 
of its mandates is the definition of irresponsibility. We haven't 
rushed through this process. We've held hearings. We've listened to 
numerous experts. We've kept and reassigned the programs that provide 
true value for election administrators. And now is simply the time to 
end the EAC and save American taxpayers at least $33 million in the 
next 5 years.
  It doesn't get any easier to find an example of wasteful government 
spending. If we can't do this, we might as well pack up and go home 
because this is as obvious as it gets.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 672, and I 
yield myself 5 minutes.
  Supporters of the bill once told us that this would save $14 million 
each year. I'm not sure how they came up with that number. What we do 
know is that when Ranking Member Brady asked the FEC if they could 
handle the responsibilities of EAC, this is what they said: Sure, if 
you give us more money. So this bill would take money from an agency 
they don't like and give it to an agency that no one likes. It will 
take money from an agency that has met many challenges and has improved 
its operations in the past few years, and it will give it to one on the 
opposite path, one that has become only more dysfunctional in recent 
years.
  But H.R. 672 doesn't move all of EAC's functions to the FEC. Some of 
the best ones simply go away. So let's say that H.R. 672 will save the 
Federal Government $6.6 million a year. That's great. Unless you happen 
to live in a State. This is just another example of shifting the costs 
to the States. Well, we lose the efficiencies of having a central 
clearinghouse for information, so maybe this isn't just cost shifting 
but cost increasing, because no matter what we do, our States have to 
run elections every year, often twice a year.
  The EAC doesn't run elections. That's not its job. It assists the 
State and local election officials so that they can run elections 
better and for less. And local election officials have written in from 
across the country in praise of the EAC and opposition to this bill. 
H.R. 672 would eliminate the one Federal agency that's focused on 
finding best practices for elections. That will make it that much 
harder for the supervisor of elections in Palm Beach County, Florida, 
to learn that the registrar of voters in Fresno County, California, 
figured out a way to process paper ballots so they would run more 
smoothly, representing a 25 percent savings in election costs.
  In my home, Bexar County, the elections administrator, Jacqui 
Callanen, learned from an EAC instructional video a new technique that 
will save our county $100,000 per year. That's $100,000 in savings for 
one county, from one EAC instructional video, and we have more than 
8,000 election jurisdictions in the United States.
  But the savings don't stop there. The recount from Minnesota's 2008 
Senate race was estimated to cost the State as much as $5 million and 
the candidates around $20 million. Worse, the people of Minnesota were 
deprived of one of their Senators for 6 of the most turbulent months in 
recent history. If the EAC can prevent the need for such recounts and 
reduce the costs and time involved in others, how much is that worth? 
EAC has taken tremendous steps to help our States ensure that our 
citizens, especially the disabled, are able to exercise their 
constitutional right and civic responsibility to participate in our 
electoral system. Now, how much is that worth?
  Are the proponents of this bill willing to put a pricetag on that? 
Mr. Speaker, we spend millions of dollars and put our young men and 
women in harm's way, promoting and protecting our great democracy. Is 
it really too much to spend $6.6 million here at home?
  When H.R. 672 was marked up in committee, I offered a very simple 
amendment. It would have had GAO look into whether the bill would 
actually save money, including whether savings at the Federal level 
would simply be the result of pushing costs onto the States, and 
whether voters would be disenfranchised, giving us the time to 
reconsider if the results were negative. I hadn't anticipated that the 
bill would reach the floor with no chance to offer an amendment. When 
we defeat this, when it comes up for a vote, and if the Republican 
leadership should decide to bring H.R. 672 back to the floor under a 
rule, I fully intend to offer that amendment again. If the supporters 
of H.R. 672 are so confident of the bill's savings and innocuous 
nature, I can't see why they would object to my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARPER. I yield as much time as he shall consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lungren), chairman of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support 
of this legislation. You know, Mr. Speaker, my mom was born and raised 
in Chicago, Illinois, and listening to her stories about what 
transpired in the political process when she was growing up there, I 
used to think that the only place that you could find immortality in 
this world was on the voting rolls of Cook County. But I find here 
today that Ronald Reagan was right: Immortality is in the name of a 
Federal Government program.
  This was supposed to be a temporary program. It was supposed to give 
temporary assistance to the States to make sure they could comply with 
HAVA, and it has done that. It has done that. It has let out all the 
money, billions of dollar that go to the States to assist in doing 
that. Its time has come and gone.
  Mr. Speaker, if we cannot see that in these very difficult budget 
times we have to make some difficult decisions with respect to looking 
at programs to see if they've exhausted their usefulness, then we'll 
never be able to respond appropriately to what our constituents expect 
of us.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, carefully drafted, allows for those 
small elements of this agency to be transferred to the FEC with funds 
to carry out those responsibilities. The argument that the gentleman 
has just made, that somehow the FEC is not up to snuff, is not an 
argument I would think that the gentleman would support to somehow get 
rid of the FEC. We are giving them some responsibilities with funds, 
and hopefully they can carry those out.
  The idea that we can stand here with a straight face and argue that 
an agency which spends over 50 percent of its total funding on 
overhead--and be able to say that to the American people is not only 
disappointing, but it's dispiriting, because it suggests to the 
American people that we are incapable of looking carefully at agencies 
and departments to see when, in fact, they are doing a job that 
continues and needs to be done, or when they have finished their 
function and, therefore, no longer need to exist.
  Now, the Secretaries of State have spoken rather forcefully before 
our committee with respect to the fact that they no longer need the 
assistance of this particular arm of the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1930

  How often do we have people who come to us and say, We don't need 
this assistance anymore? Not very often. Should we ignore that in this 
particular case?
  Admittedly, this is a small amount of money. It's only in the 
millions. Where I come from, that's important. Millions mean a lot. 
This is more important, though, as a symbol or a signal as to what we 
will do.
  Look, if we had all the money in the world, maybe we wouldn't have 
this on the floor. We don't have all the money in the world, although 
we've tried to

[[Page 9626]]

prove that we can print all the money in the world. The fact of the 
matter is folks back home want us somehow to get our house in order. 
That's the House of Representatives, and it's the house that we call 
the United States Federal Government. This may be a small room in that 
house, but, nonetheless, it is one that needs to be addressed.
  The gentleman from Mississippi has done an excellent job of holding 
hearings on this matter, hearing from all parties on this, and has come 
up with this legislation. The suggestion that somehow by 
disestablishing the EAC we are going to penalize the military is 
something that I cannot understand very well at all. The Federal Voting 
Assistance Program under the DOD will continue to implement the MOVE 
Act, as they have very ably done since the passage of this bill in the 
last Congress. If you really examine it, the EAC has a very small role 
in the process, and that role will be continued after the EAC has been 
shut down.
  States are looking at us to see whether we can give them some relief, 
and, in most cases, we are not going to be able to give the States some 
relief because, frankly, we don't have the money.
  Businesses are looking at us, those who are in businesses, to see if 
we will understand the mistakes we've made in the past and do what they 
have to do, that is, to try to become more effective and more 
efficient. Our constituents are looking at us as they look for some 
glimmer that we understand the terrible fiscal situation we find 
ourselves in. And they're looking for just the littlest, the smallest 
suggestion that we are going to be serious about the fiscal mess that 
we find ourselves in.
  This is a small start, but it is a start. And again, as the gentleman 
from Mississippi said, if we can't do this now, when can we do it? When 
you have a demonstrable record of an agency that's outlived its 
usefulness, you have to act. That's all we're attempting to do. I would 
hope that we would have a near unanimous vote in support of the 
gentleman's bill.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip 
who was instrumental in a bipartisan effort to actually pass, a few 
years ago, the Help America Vote Act.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to rise in opposition to this bill.
  The gentleman from Mississippi knows as well as any of us that the 
right to vote is sacred. Access to the polling places ought to be 
sacred. Every American ought to be facilitated in voting, and every 
American vote needs to count. That's what the Help America Vote Act was 
all about.
  Bob Ney of Ohio, who was chairman of the House Administration 
Committee subsequent to the 2000 election, and I worked on this 
legislation. And as has been pointed out, it passed overwhelmingly in a 
bipartisan way.
  The right to vote is at the foundation of our democracy, so it is 
extremely disappointing that this bill would undermine our Nation's 
ability to protect that right. From 1789 to 2000, the Federal 
Government had elections which it did not pay for nor did it 
administer. Now, under this bill, we're still not paying for elections 
and we're still not administering them, not this bill that's on the 
floor. But under our scheme of things, the elections are still run by 
States and counties and localities.
  What this agency was designed to do was to bring the best information 
possible so that elections could be run in the best way possible. There 
are over, I think, 120 million voters in America. So this is 20 cents 
for each one of those voters, to make sure that they have access and 
that their vote is counted and counted properly. Eliminating funding 
for the Election Assistance Commission would harm the integrity of our 
elections in 2012 and for years to come. Voters deserve assurance that 
their vote will count.
  In 2000, our democracy was blemished by our flawed election systems. 
This was a response, passed in a bipartisan fashion. Regardless of how 
we felt about the outcome of that election, Republicans and Democrats 
agreed that the Federal Government had a duty to improve election 
systems so that every qualified citizen's vote counts.
  Now, the FEC has a responsibility, and that is to monitor 
contributions and expenditures of political candidates, not to run 
elections. They had somewhat that responsibility before we created the 
Election Assistance Commission in HAVA, and they did not carry it out. 
Why? Because they neither had the resources nor the time to do so.
  We need to provide States the financial and informational resources 
to upgrade their voting registration systems, train their poll workers, 
and improve access for disabled voters. The result was the bipartisan 
Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, which I was proud to help write.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. It passed the House by 357 votes to 48 and passed the 
Senate with only two votes against.
  Before HAVA, the Federal Government guaranteed voting rights, but it 
did little to ensure, on the nuts-and-bolts level, that our objectives 
were carried out. As part of its efforts toward that end, HAVA created 
a bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, whose job is to administer 
grants to States and provide States with ongoing guidance.
  My good friend from California (Mr. Lungren), with whom I have served 
for a number of years, is wrong. There was no intention to make this a 
temporary agency just for the distribution of grants. It was an ongoing 
advisory agency to make sure that best practices were pursued, not 
because they can impose but because they can advise, an extraordinarily 
worthwhile event.
  The EAC has created a comprehensive program to test State voting 
systems for accuracy. Don't we all want that? And use of this program 
has been shown to save our States millions of dollars, as the ranking 
member just said.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional minute.
  The EAC is not perfect. There is no agency, including the one we're 
going to fund this week that spends almost $700 billion--that's not 
perfect. Should we fix it where it's broken? Yes. Should we do that to 
every agency? Yes. Is it our responsibility to do so? Yes. But to 
eliminate the very agency constructed to ensure that we do not repeat 
the travesty of 2000 is to retreat from ensuring fair, open, accessible 
elections where every vote will count.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this piece of legislation. If, 
in fact, the EAC needs fixing, let's fix it. That's the responsibility 
of the House Administration Committee on which I served for, I think, 
17 years. You ought to do that if you think this is not working 
correctly, because what it does is absolutely essential for democracy 
and for America.
  Defeat this legislation.
  Mr. HARPER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, chairman of the Committee on House 
Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 672, and I commend my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) 
for his authorship.
  The distinguished minority whip, the former Democratic majority 
leader, just made the statement essentially saying that few things are 
more important in this country than ensuring that every American 
citizen's right to vote is protected, and the EAC helps America to 
vote.

                              {time}  1940

  We agree on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. We agree that few 
things are more important than ensuring Americans can vote. However, 
the Election Assistance Commission's support in this area is negligible 
at best.

[[Page 9627]]

  In 2005, and again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries 
of State, the individuals in the States tasked with overseeing 
elections, called for the dissolution of the EAC. The committee heard 
firsthand testimony from Secretaries of State that affirmed the passion 
with which they support this bill, the Harper bill, and how useless 
they feel this agency has become.
  When those who oversee elections call for the dissolution of an 
agency supposedly meant to be supporting their efforts, Congress should 
listen.
  But no, it's like President Ronald Reagan once said, and I quote him: 
``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government 
programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau 
is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.''
  Mr. Speaker, the minority whip just basically said the same thing, 
that once an agency is created, even after it's performed its function, 
it's done its duty, it's time to eliminate it. And we're talking about 
millions of dollars.
  This is an important bill. As the gentleman from Mississippi so 
clearly stated, if we can't do this, what can we do in regard to 
reducing unnecessary spending of the taxpayer dollars so we'll have 
those precious dollars for other more important matters to help our 
States?
  So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, let's have 
a unanimous vote in support.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Election 
Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act. This would eliminate, as we 
have heard, the Election Assistance Commission.
  And let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more 
crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, fairness, 
accessibility and accuracy of elections. Democracy works only if the 
citizens believe it does. The system must work, and the people must 
believe that it works.
  But voting shouldn't be an act of blind faith. It should be an act of 
record. The EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral 
process. And too many people across the country lack confidence in the 
legitimacy of election results, and the dismantling of the EAC would 
further erode that faith that is so essential to democracy.
  How quickly Members seem to have forgotten the Florida recount with 
its hanging chads and pregnant chads and uncertainty counts of ballots 
to determine voter intent. The 2000 election exposed critical flaws and 
inconsistencies in how elections were conducted and, in its wake, 
Congress, under the leadership of Representative Hoyer and others, 
approved the Help America Vote Act to assist State and local 
jurisdictions.
  Yet, the legislation we're considering today willfully ignores this 
history. The bill closes the EAC, transfers some of its vital functions 
to the Election Commission, an agency that doesn't have the capability 
or the expertise to do the job and has other important work to do.
  This bill takes this in exactly the wrong direction. While millions 
of Americans are casting their votes on unauditable voting machines and 
the results of many elections are not audited, eliminating the EAC 
would increase the risks that our electoral process will be compromised 
by voter system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk? 
Certainly not.
  H.R. 672 is another example of the desire of this Chamber that seems 
to exist to cut recklessly valuable services, rather than engage in the 
hard work of making government work at its best.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided bill.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), also a former Secretary of State 
for the State of Colorado.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. In listening to the opposition, the 
statements against this legislation, it would make it sound like the 
EAC, the Election Assistance Commission, is a branch of the Justice 
Department, that it's there to enforce the right to vote. It doesn't do 
any of that at all.
  The primary goal for the Election Assistance Commission was, after 
the Florida recount, the problems there in the 2000 election, that 
according to the Help America Vote Act, that the States such as 
Colorado that I was the Secretary of State in, were going to have to 
have a voter registration system that would be interactive, interactive 
database, to make sure that there wasn't fraud, that there wasn't 
duplicative registrations; and that the EAC would be the conduit for 
Federal resources grants to States to be able to facilitate that, and 
to make sure that that was carried out by the States. And that was for 
the 2008 Presidential election, long since done, long accomplished.
  As to the EAC, which has no ability to mandate anything to States, 
but as an advisory tool, election officials across this country don't 
utilize it. There are associations that provide those best practices at 
every level of elections, from the county clerks to the Secretaries of 
State. And so this is an agency who's primary purpose is long since 
over with, and we can transfer the remaining function over to the 
Federal Elections Commission. And I rise in strong support for H.R. 672 
and would urge its passage.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the great State 
of Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we 
are here in the dark of night discussing the issues of election 
fairness. I would almost imagine it would be somewhat similar to taking 
up the Voting Rights Act, the one of 1965, in the dark of night.
  We can speak lightly about this, but I will tell you that every 
election time someone is denied the right to vote in the United States. 
I hope Americans are paying attention tonight to realize that even 
though it is represented that the change and eliminating the particular 
agency that deals with the questions of fairness, the Election 
Assistance Commission, we're actually not saving money, and passing the 
responsibilities off to the Federal Elections Commission.
  Why could we not have accepted the amendment of the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who said let's do it right. Let's 
have a general accountable study and know what we're doing and if we're 
taking away the rights of those who are desiring to vote.
  I will tell you that the purging of voters that occurs in Texas and 
other places around the Nation, and in particular in Harris County, is 
not a minor issue. The distraction of African American male voters in 
Florida during the 2000 election is not simply a distraction.
  And so the question is, even if this deals with interactive data, let 
me suggest to you that it is an important tool for local government 
because without this particular commission, those resources or those 
responsibilities and the finding of the money will be on local 
governments. So now we're doing unfunded mandates.
  I would simply say that it was painful to pass the health bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, was passed 
in the backdrop of a great deal of emotionalism.

                              {time}  1950

  I am not here to point fingers, but I lived through that emotional 
time. It is history, my colleagues know that it is, but they know how 
painful it was to be engaged in hanging chads and discussions about who 
was turned away from the voting booth--and also the discrepancies on 
how we count our votes in America, the most sophisticated Nation in the 
world, the Nation that others look to and say, how do we promote 
democracy?

[[Page 9628]]

  Why would we stand on the floor of the House at 8 o'clock tonight and 
deny democracy? I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to 
stand for democracy and fairness.
  Mr. HARPER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I would like to address some of the remarks made by the 
proponents of this particular bill. First, I know it was not 
intentional to mischaracterize the words of Mr. Hoyer. He did not state 
that the EAC should have an eternal life. What he said is, it was 
essential, in its present form, in the function that it provides. I 
think he also indicated that everything is not a simple budget or 
mathematical problem. There is cost benefit to look into and see what 
the true benefit is for the investment of that Federal dollar.
  Much has been said about the National Association of Secretaries of 
State coming out with a resolution. That is not news. From the very 
inception they opposed the creation of the Election Assistance 
Commission, and on a regular basis they would pass a resolution 
expressing that opposition. But I do wish to point out that the 
president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, 
Secretary of State of Minnesota Mark Ritchie--whose State knows 
something about the cost of problematic elections--testified before our 
committee on March 31 that he was certainly not in favor of terminating 
the Election Assistance Commission.
  I also wish to read from a letter that we received today at about 4 
p.m. to a House Administration election staffer:
  Dear Mr. Khalil, I am the election director of Harford County Board 
of Elections in northeastern Maryland. I am a Republican and have been 
active in the Republican Party since 1968. I am also the Republican 
member of the Standards Board of the Election Assistance Commission.
  As a representative of a local board of elections, we are very 
isolated and depend on the EAC as a clearinghouse of information and 
resources. The EAC has been most helpful to local boards of elections 
in supporting our election administration and providing guidance in 
future elections. The FEC is too political and cannot do and perform as 
the Election Assistance Commission.
  The passage of H.R. 672 will be a loss to local boards of election 
nationwide. We are the grassroots of the election community, and we 
need the support of the EAC.
  In closing, we will in fact defeat this tomorrow. I'm hoping that my 
amendment will be ruled in order and that we will have a chance to 
really look at the potential effect this bill will have on local 
election officials. Not to politicize it. This is not about Republicans 
or about Democrats; it's about how effective and efficient our local 
election officials can be. With the assistance of the only 
clearinghouse, the only commission with the expertise and the 
dedication to that single goal. There will be no other agency like it, 
there will be no other commission like it, and it's well worth the 
investment that we make on a yearly basis to assure the integrity and 
the efficiency of our local elections. I don't know of any better 
investment.
  I understand that we have to tighten our belts. Do we do it, though, 
at the cost of the efficient running of our elections, the very basis 
for our democracy?
  I commend the Members on the other side of the aisle for this effort, 
but it is truly misguided. It's not based on facts or the realities on 
the ground. And almost every local election official will echo those 
sentiments today.
  I oppose this bill. I will be voting against it. And I ask my 
colleagues to please oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the 
statement was just made that the FEC is too political to take on the 
responsibilities of the EAC. That's an amazing statement in light of 
the fact that the EAC has been sued for political discrimination--the 
very agency that's supposed to take care of fairness and do things in 
these issues gets sued for political discrimination. So that is hardly 
an argument to say that it can't be transferred.
  We are looking at transferring the essential functions of the EAC 
over to the FEC with the personnel and funding that's necessary to do 
that job. It's a very responsible and adult thing to do to take care 
not only of spending issues, but we have an agency that is spending 
51.7 percent of its budget on administration and management, not in 
program administration, not in taking care of grants, those have come 
and gone. So here we are in that situation of an agency that needs to 
be eliminated.
  And I want to make it clear that in no way, by eliminating the EAC, 
are we doing anything to repeal or have any intent to do away with 
HAVA. That is something that came about in a bipartisan effort, and it 
will remain and shall remain as we move forward. But the EAC was 
created and funded for a 3-year period. Nine years later, we have one 
of the most inefficient agencies that we will probably ever see. It is 
beyond tweaking and correcting to do that.
  I want to say that we all believe it is essential in our country that 
everyone has a right to vote and has access to vote and that no one be 
disenfranchised. In no way does that have any impact in a negative way. 
In fact, it will make the election process more efficient to do away 
with an agency like this. It is a Federal agency that has long outlived 
its usefulness. And if we look at the people that are on the ground in 
the States, the Secretaries of State in each of our States, that NASS 
would pass a resolution, not once, but twice, that this agency needs to 
be done away with--we need to follow that great advice of those that 
are most intimately familiar with what's going on.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 672 eliminates wasteful 
spending in a responsible way. In particular, H.R. 672 would transfer 
the Election Assistance Commission's Office of Voting System Testing 
and Certification to the Federal Election Commission, while maintaining 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) current 
role in the accreditation of laboratories to test voting equipment. The 
bill continues the formal mechanisms for input into the development of 
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSGs) by maintaining the current 
Technical Guidelines Development Committee (which NIST, chairs), and 
replaces several committees with a streamlined 56-member Guidelines 
Review Board composed of state and local election officials and other 
key constituencies including federal representatives.
  The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is the Committee of 
jurisdiction over the scientific and technological aspects of voting 
reform including research, development, and testing of voting machine 
standards. These responsibilities have been assigned by the Help 
America Votes Act (HAVA) of 2002 to NIST. Within HAVA, the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee created provisions to ensure that 
proper technical standards would be developed to improve voting 
technology and that a reliable system would be set up to test equipment 
against those standards. These activities allow states and localities 
to participate in the standards development process and to trust the 
systems they choose to invest in. Both are preserved in the legislation 
we are considering today.
  I thank Representative Gregg Harper (R-MS) and his staff for 
recognizing the importance of maintaining a pathway for the development 
of voting standards and ensuring the quality of voting equipment in 
H.R. 672.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 672.
  Today our national debt is 14.344 trillion dollars. Any time we have 
the opportunity to save taxpayers $33 million over five years, while 
improving the efficiency of our federal government, we should take it.
  Those against this bill have said that elections officials from 
across the country have called for the agency to be protected. Well, I 
happen to have been a Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, and 
I am calling for this Agency to be eliminated. In fact, the National 
Association of Secretaries of State has passed

[[Page 9629]]

two resolutions calling for the EAC's termination.
  The EAC's election research function is obsolete. It has completed 4 
of the 5 federally mandated election studies, and the one outstanding 
study is six years overdue and mired in interagency controversy.
  The agency spends over 50% of its budget on administrative costs. 
EAC's budget request for 2012 is for 5.4 million dollars to manage 
programs totaling 3.4 million dollars.
  The EAC does not register voters, nor does it have any enforcement 
authority over laws governing voter registration.
  This bill will transfer the EAC's remaining valuable service, its 
voting system testing and certification program, to the Federal 
Election Commission (FEC), which is better equipped to perform these 
functions more efficiently.
  It is time to, as this bill does, terminate the EAC promptly and 
responsibly.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 672, a bill 
that ends the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent and 
bipartisan commission whose main function is to improve and oversee 
elections in the U.S.
  This bill would transfer much of the EAC's responsibilities and funds 
to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), whose main priority is not 
election administration, but rather enforcing federal campaign laws. In 
a letter to the House Administration Committee, the FEC noted that they 
could ``contract with outside groups to fulfill aspects of the EAC's 
responsibilities.'' Facilitating free and fair elections is an 
inherently governmental function that should not be outsourced.
  The world's leading democracy should not affix a price on free and 
fair elections, but that is exactly what Congress does in this 
legislation. In effect, H.R. 672 says that preventing another crisis 
like the one we saw during the 2000 presidential election--where 
millions of Americans did not have their ballots counted due to failed 
voting machines--is too expensive and is not a priority.
  It is deeply ironic that just as Florida--the state responsible for 
the bulk of voter complications in 2000 that prompted Congress to pass 
the Help America Vote Act--signs into law onerous voter registration 
requirements, Congress is dismantling a bipartisan solution that helped 
ensure the effective administration of elections.
  This is a politicized bill that is well wide of the mark of true 
government reform. Simply repealing the EAC, like Republicans did with 
the Presidential Election Fund earlier this year, further undermines 
America's democracy and is a step in the wrong direction. I oppose this 
legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 672 ``Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act.'' This 
bill seeks to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to terminate the 
Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the EAC Standards Board, and the 
EAC Board of Advisors 61 days after enactment of this Act. It also 
requires that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
perform EAC functions with respect to certain existing contracts and 
agreements during the transition period for finishing EAC affairs.
  I oppose this bill because it undermines the intent behind the Help 
America Vote Act. Let me remind those who have forgotten of the chaos 
in the days following the election of 2000. Congress passed the Help 
America Vote Act in 2002 which helped create the Election Assistance 
Commission. The EAC was created to help state and local election 
officials use current technology and best practices when overseeing 
elections.
  The EAC oversees voting-system testing and certification. The EAC 
tests and certifies voting machines for use in elections to safeguard 
against the problems of 2000 election in Florida; and creates voluntary 
voting guidelines for states, instilling confidence in the democratic 
process of this country for all voters.
  The Commission also develops and fosters the training and 
organization of more than 8,000 election administrators throughout the 
nation.
  The EAC's certification program is helping state and local 
governments save money by using its oversight role to coordinate with 
manufacturers and local election officials to ensure that the existing 
equipment meets its durability and longevity potential. This saves 
state and local governments from the unnecessary expense of new voting 
equipment.
  The Commission plays a major role in collecting accurate and 
comparable election data.
  Living in a nation guided by the spirit of democracy and by which the 
American people are the voices for change, I do not see how H.R. 672 
can continue this legacy. Without the EAC, there would be no federal 
agency focused on improving the quality of elections. With this, the 
American people will lose faith in our democracy and, to tell you the 
truth so will I.
  The American people have not forgotten the chaos of the 2000, and let 
us ensure that this Congress remembers those troubling days as well. We 
must never forget the feeling of fear and uncertainty as the fabric of 
our democracy and our faithful constitution was put to test. I feel for 
scores of votes in Florida, whose voices were not heard as fraud and 
corruption consumed polling stations. As a representative of Texas, a 
state of over 20 million people, I refuse to have any voice of Texas' 
constituents, or mine of the 18th district, be stifled by those who 
think otherwise.
  In the society we live in, it is often those who cannot defend 
themselves or those with limited political power whose voices are often 
overshadowed. Among this group are oftentimes the poor, women, the 
uneducated, the inept, and the elderly. The EAC has worked tirelessly 
to end this trend. Through research, grant-making and the development 
of voting guidelines, the Election Assistance Commission is helping 
many groups gain their Constitutional right to vote, including racial 
and ethnic minorities, members of the Armed Services (especially those 
serving overseas), disabled Americans and senior citizens.
  The EAC has worked to improve the accessibility of more than 37 
million disabled voters with disabilities.
  It also has worked to create electronic voting systems for our brave 
men and women in uniform fighting overseas so that they are able to 
vote abroad.
  Considering my belief that the termination of the EAC would untangle 
progress our democracy has made in bringing uniformity and equality 
among states in the voting process, I strongly urge opposition to this 
bill. If the EAC is terminated, it is very likely we will see many more 
elections like the election of 2000. If we care about the legacy of our 
democracy and our constitution, I urge opposition to H.R. 672.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 672, 
the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act, which eliminates 
the Election Assistance Commission, EAC. I oppose this legislation 
because terminating the EAC risks reducing the voting and civil rights 
of our citizens--rights for which many have given their lives.
  The EAC is charged with developing standards for voting systems, and 
this precedent-setting work has been recognized by nations around the 
world. The EAC's certification program uses its oversight role to 
coordinate with manufacturers and local election officials to ensure 
that existing voting equipment meets durability and longevity 
standards. This relieves states and local governments of burdensome 
costs of acquiring new but unnecessary voting equipment.
  Several countries are so impressed with our system that they have 
signed agreements with the EAC for technical assistance as they develop 
their own voting system standards and certification procedures.
  The EAC has also played a central role in improving the accessibility 
of voting for the country's more than 37 million voters with 
disabilities. We still have a long way to go to achieve the Help 
America Vote Act's mandate to make voting accessible and the EAC's 
leadership is essential to continuing the effort to offer all Americans 
the right to vote ``privately and independently.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is worth recalling that the EAC, an independent 
bipartisan commission charged with improving the conduct of elections 
in America to ensure that every vote counts, was born out of the 2000 
presidential election fiasco with its unforgettable contributions to 
the political lexicon: ``hanging'' chads, ``pregnant'' chads, 
``dimpled'' chads; ``butterfly ballots''; and ``voter intent.''
  In response to the 2000 debacle, the EAC has performed valuable work 
to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of our nation's election 
systems. It has played a central role in collecting accurate and 
comparable election data. With our nation's complex and diversified 
election administration system, central data collection is essential if 
we are going to improve our citizens' trust and confidence in election 
results. EAC develops and fosters the training and organization of our 
nation's more than 8,000 election administrators.
  Terminating EAC is not only an invitation to repeat the embarrassment 
of the 2000 presidential election, but it breaks faith with those who 
labored long and risked much to secure the right to vote for all 
Americans, particularly African Americans and other minority groups.
  Mr. Speaker, if you believe every vote counts--and every vote should 
be counted--then we must preserve the EAC and oppose this legislation.

[[Page 9630]]

  It is also important to note that abolishing the EAC would simply 
shift costs to the Federal Election Commission and local governments, 
not save taxpayer money. The FEC is not an agency that can make 
decisions in a timely and responsive fashion due to its partisan 
divisions. Consequently, transferring the functions performed by the 
EAC to the FEC is inconsistent with the national interest in ensuring 
election integrity, improving voter access to the polls, and enhancing 
the quality of election systems.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose H.R. 672 and I would urge my 
colleagues to join me in defeating this misguided and reckless 
legislation that puts the integrity of our election systems--public 
confidence in election outcomes--at risk.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 672, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________